Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abd Al Rahman Al Zahri

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. In future AfDs of this type, it might be better to consider the notability of each detainee individually, as it has not always been clear in this discussion whom we're talking about. That contributes to our failure to arrive at a consensus here.  Sandstein  06:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abd Al Rahman Al Zahri

Abd Al Rahman Al Zahri (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Abdel al-Mudhaffari (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete)

Delete Articles do not meet WP:BIO as there are no independent secondary sources. There are a few inclusions of these individuals in lists of detainees in independent sources, but no sources focus exclusively on either. These entries in Wikipedia are similar to this AfD, this AfD, and this AfD, all of which were deleted in that the military documents used to justify the above-nominated articles are not independent, secondary sources. Additionally, the deletion of the first article was endorsed after review. I've done research to find more information about the subjects of these articles; I found nothing except trivial mentions. BWH76 (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete both per nom and precedent. It sounds crazy, but being held in extrajudicial detention by the U.S. just doesn't make one necessarily notable anymore. "O tempora o mores! In light of some of the comments below, I agree with keep. I didn't look into things as carefully as I should have. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both searching for both names through the net and google books, turns up no mentions of them at all, I would presume that they are not notable and fail notability guidelines.  Atyndall93 | talk  10:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -- Disclaimer, I started both these articles.

In January I went to Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard, and WP:BLP/Noticeboard, and asked for opinions on whether the Summary of Evidence memos prepared for Guantanamo captives Tribunals should be considered secondary sources. Both of these articles reference Summary of Evidence memos, prepared particularly to document the reasons they were being held by the USA. On January 24, 2008 my query netted helpful, collegial questions, which started:

For a source to be considered secondary there must be some form of significant and original artistic construction within it. If the summaries are something like a bibliography, this is considered a form of mechanical action, requiring no original artistic effort...

I offered a detailed reply. And my correspondent concluded.

Yes, imho, summaries of the type you outline above would be considered secondary sources.

Of course participants here are entitled to disagree with the opinions expressed in WP:RS/Noticeboard. But I don't think anyone can say the assertion that these sources are primary sources, that fail to measure up to policy requirements is so obvious it does not require explanation.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - This specific argument has been addressed repeatedly in the previous AfD's listed in the nomination, and most recently by this administrator (on his/her talk page). Furthermore, it is the rebuttal of the above opinion that led to each deletion. Military documents specifically produced to determine the continued detention of the subjects of these articles are considered primary sources. BWH76 (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree that the questions I raised were adequately addressed in the earlier {{afd}}. If our nominator, or anyone else, thinks there have been meaningful response to my attempts to get outside informed opinions in the WP:RS and WP:BLP noticeboards as to whether these sources were primary or secondary sources, then I would encourage them to summarize or paraphrase those counter-arguments here.

Regarding the comments of that closing administrator... In the interests of brevity I only provide counter-arguments in an {{afd}} to arguments other participants actually made in that {{afd}}. We entrust administrators with considerable authority. We authorize them to delete articles they think meet the criteria for speedy deletion, on their sole judgment. But, when they conclude an {{afd}} I believe it can be a mistake to base their concluding statements on arguments that were not made in that particular {{afd}}. I think doing so can be unfair to those making a case for "keep", because it does not allow them an opportunity to make a counter-argument. Geo Swan (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Please note that the creator of the article has asked me to withdraw nomination of one of these two articles, stating on my talk page that "it is in [my] interest" to do so based upon some "informal 'one at a time' rule."1 Additionally, the article creator writes that "some participants will regard multiple nominations as a form of harrassment [sic]."2 I don't agree with this opinion and wanted to disclose this here so that all info relating to specific AfD's should be kept on the individual AfD page. BWH76 (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I did suggest BWH consider withdrawing one {{afd}} because I thought he or she was making a series of similar, but distinct {{afd}}s. Geo Swan (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as there are precedents, and the obvious logic that not all terrorists and detainees are notable by themselves. Vishnava (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment given the last few days news accounts about the dropping of charges and the refusal of military lawyers to proceed with cases, a good deal more information will soon be forthcoming about the individual people. DGG (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, nominator is being dishonest in his claim of "precedence" since there are just as many similar articles that he has nominated for deletion that have ended in "Keep" and "NC" votes. He seems determined to simply nominate all 900 articles for deletion to get half of them randomly deleted, and those that end in "Keep" votes are re-nominated until they are deleted. The subject of the article launched al-Mudhafarri v. George Bush, his tribunal was followed by UC Davis. al-Zahri was quoted fairly extensively by Andy Worthington in media stories, and the Associated Press Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 16:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The person quoted in in the above-mentioned article by Andy Worthington is not the same person as the subject of one of the nominated articles. The person in Worthington's article is Abdul Rahman al-Zahri, a Saudi who said he would have been "honored" to have participated in September 11. The subject of the nominated article is Abd Al Rahman Al Zahri from Yemen. BWH76 (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It is actually the same person, "Abd al Rahman" is "Abdulrahman", if you read the al-Zahri article before nominating it for deletion, you'd see he was the one who said he'd have been "honoured", and there is only one al-Zahri in Guantanamo Bay - don't muddy the issue by claiming media sources don't count because they transliterate Arabic names differently, what's next, "Usama bin Laden" and "Osama bin Laden" are separate people? It is quite clear these are the same people, only his nationality is confused in the media article. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean - there do appear to be striking similarities between the two. If we could resolve the discrepancies, though between the apparent origin between the two (Yemen vs. Saudi Arabia) and also rectify the quotes - the quotes don't match up, nor have I found the quote Worthington cited in court docs - I would reconsider this. As for your personal attacks and assuming bad faith, I've already addressed this conduct previously. BWH76 (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've not found the name "Al Zahri" in any lists of detainees. Where did you find his name?BWH76 (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

the more clear you make it that you haven't done your research, the less respect I have for your claims that you can speak with authority as to why articles should be deleted. If you want respect, earn it - as long as your conduct remains unchanged, my attitude towards you will remain the same. (The 2007 Associated Press article "Gitmo panels struggle to assess facts" calls him "Abdul al-Rahman" rather than the proper "Abdul Rahman", "Abdulrahman" or "Abd al Rahman" - but then also issues a retraction stating that they had misidentified prisoners as Saudi rather than Yemeni...pretty much proving what I said), if that still doesn't convince you, look up the Septembe 9 2007 article "Hearing transcripts offer rare chance to hear from them" which again quotes al-Zahri. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, I ask that you please be civil. I do see al Zahri's name mentioned in this article and I see that the AP printed a correction for misidentifying one detainee "al-Wady" as being from Afghanistan instead of Yemen in a previous article - is there something on al Zahri or are you making an assumption that a mistake was made based upon the correction on al-Wady? BWH76 (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's be nice, kids. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding names...

• Captive 441 was called "Abd Al Rahman Al Zahri" on the 2004 and 2005 memos.
• Captive 441 was called "Abdul Rahman Ahmed" on the 2006 memo.

I think it is worth noting that the memos allege that he participated in planning the 9-11 attacks, and that he had knowledge of plans to attack the USA in the future.

The 2006 memo also states he may have spoofed his interrogators, "fabricated" them the stories of involvement with bin Laden, or taking part in the planning of attacks. Geo Swan (talk) 07:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep on the basis of the lawsuit. The information needs to be added. This articles should be at least be reviewed to see which ones do fulfill the requirements for sourcing and notability. DGG (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per DGG. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Let's take stock of the new information that's come to light since I first nominated these articles. First, Sherurcij rightly points out that al Zahri is quoted here and here. In the first, he was the focus of one paragraph. In the second, he was mentioned in one sentence. Although this does help improve the article, I still don't believe it constitutes significant coverage by secondary sources.

• Next, the Al-Mudhaffari documents listed above (the two are actually the same thing from 2 different sources) are military documents from a Combat Status Review Trial (to determine continued detention of the subject). These documents are primary sources. UC Davis, unless there is additional information, did not follow this case closely - their website has hundreds of primary source material like this. There is no secondary coverage of this that I have yet found. There is coverage of the fact that many detainees have filed lawsuits naming Bush as the defendant, but not on this individual case. BWH76 (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I am confident respondent is sincere in his or her assertion these are primary sources. But that they were compiled from documents from multiple agencies, including the CIA, the FBI, the CITF, and the office of the DASD-DA, and possibly the State Department, foreign government intelligence services, and other agencies, makes them secondary sources. In the interest of complying with the recommendations that wikipedians engage in dialog when they disagree, I would really appreciate an explanation why the multiple sources reviewed in the preparation of the memos do not mean they are secondary sources. Geo Swan (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Respondent is correct that some captives launched cases that name George W. Bush. Respondent is mistaken when he or she looked at Abdelqadir Al Mudhaffari v. George W. Bush and did not recognize that it was a package of documents generated because lawyers acting on Abdelqadir's behalf named George W. Bush. My understanding is that all of the documents in that suit are public, in that any member of the public can access them. Abdelqadir's lawyers appeared before Judge Robertson on November 7, 2005, and six weeks later, presumably because Robertson ordered the Executive Branch to release to his lawyers the justification for why Abdelqadir was being held, the package was generated. These documents represent one stage in the exchange of documents in this case. There are other documents connected with this case. We simply haven't found them online, yet. Geo Swan (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll try to explain this one more time. For our purposes here, it is irrelevant what sources OARDEC used to produce it's recommendation on the continued detention of these subjects. They could have used coloring books, bits of string, and astronomical predictions to form their recommendation, but it doesn't matter in establishing that OARDEC files are primary sources. The documents that this military organization produced were specifically and explicitly produced to make a judgment on Guantanamo detainees - these military documents were the basis of the detainees' continued detention. This is why the previous AfDs I cited in my nomination resulted in delete.
    • Regarding the al Mudhaffari court documents: basing an article's notability on documents that a Wikipedian may find in the future clearly does not meet our standards. More importantly, even if we were to find and reference every single court document regarding this case, it would not make a difference since court documents are primary sources. Basing an article exclusively on primary sources, especially for biographies of living people, does not meet Wikipedia standards. BWH76 (talk) 07:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I am afraid I feel I have to repeat a point I made earlier. Respondent continues to assert the references are "primary sources". By definition, a secondary sources is one that summarizes and synthesizes other documents. The Summary memos, are "secondary sources", by definition. With the best will in the world I can not make head or tail of the analogy with coloring books in the preceding comment.
      • Respondent points out that the proceedings had a purpose -- to make recommendations about the captive's status. This is absolutely correct. And the memos had a purpose too, to provide information to the officers making those recommendations about the captive's status. But EVERY well-written document has a purpose. Having a purpose does not make a document a primary source.
      • Regarding the existing references to Abdelqadir Al Mudhaffari v. George W. Bush, two of these references are extremely brief, and can only serve to supplement references that are more informative. However, the articles do have references that fully comply with the wikipedia's policies, that are more informative. Geo Swan (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Both. They fail the WP:BIO standard. They have not recieved significcant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Moreover, one article, which includes a long speech given by the prisoner is a blatant WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. The articles overemphasis of the prison situation is a blatant WP:COATRACK and violation of WP:UNDUE. These problems combined with the higher standard required for WP:BLP point to an obvious deletion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree there's overemphasis on the prison situations, but that's certainly call to edit and improve the article, not delete it entirely. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

On one single point I am going to acknowledge that Brewcrewe is absolutely correct. Repeating the long oral statement was a mistake -- an inadvertent lapse, from an over-tired contributor. I've moved it to wikisource. Geo Swan (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have checked WP:BIO many times. I believe the references these articles use fully comply with WP:BIO.

Suggestion above of "blatant WP:NOT#MEMORIAL" must be some kind of mistake -- both of these guys are still alive -- so obviously there is no memorial here.

WP:COATRACK has a dozen subheadings. I really believe anyone who states they have a concern over WP:COATRACK really owes it to the rest of us to be specific as to how it lapses.

Could these concerns hold merit? Sure -- if those who had them would spell out what they were. But even then I don't believe that deletion would be in order. I don't believe that is what the policies recommend. I believe that specific discussion on the talk page would be in order. Geo Swan (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.